continuing proofs America is wacko

Yeah, many of the founding fathers thought that parties were a corrupting force in politics. Of course, several of them went on to become the architects of the first party system. I'm not really sure how they expected to keep parties out of politics. The only way I could see to do that would be to ban certain political associations but that would fly in the face of the First Amendment and be generally oppressive.

I remember back to my days reading about 'Anarchism'. You know, 'property is theft' and all that heady stuff. The rule of the individual. But unless you can work collectively in some way, you can't do much, not as an individual working alone. Some Anarchists decided it might be more effective to become Syndicalists! I can't help but see the funny side of that.

There is nothing wrong with people who have similar views working together, its the party heirarchy and machine that could perhaps be done without.
States could elect who they want to represent them, the representive can take State referendum on large or contentious issues and vote to represent their states view instead of the parties.
Is that not more democratic than electing someone who might vote on something which is not favoured by their electorate (like going to war or having health care) but which the party machine wants to happen for other reasons?

A Party machine has more chance of getting Universal Health Care than a loose fraternity of good hearted people with good intentions, Petty. One must just work 'ínside' the machine to steer it to the right purposes, methinks. Words like 'team player' also come to mind, actually. We as individuals on a Forum may have all the answers, but words are cheap, 'collective' action gets things done.

Given most US states are larger than the average country is that not collective enough? And then at the national level the votes are cast accordingly. If the argument for and against health care is presented to the people they can vote in a referendum at state level to inform their representive of how they should vote at national level.
If enough states are persuaded it would be implimented- its still collective its just the will of the voter is expressed more directly and not processed first through the party machine. Which is often made up of non-voted in representives, like policy makers, and speech writers, and media analysers.

You have to remember that the framers of the U.S. Constitutions disliked democracy and didn't trust "the people" very much. The idea of a Republic is that there are insulating layers between the whims of the common masses and direct decision-making power. The government has become more democratic over time since then but it was not intended to be especially democratic to begin with.

Also, if citizen referendums were more widely adopted in the past than many crucial advancements in civil rights throughout American history would not have happened or would have been delayed. Women's suffrage are a good example. The Nineteenth Amendment, which guaranteed that, only passed because at least one legislator voted against the will of his constituents.

I dont disagree. If it were the way I suggest here the UK would most likely have a death penalty.
Its a question of how much democracy should there be?
I dont think there is anything wrong in trusting the public in theory- but the public have to particapitory, they have to take an interest in what they are being asked and they have to be educated well enough to make use of that evidence.
Education standards and community attitudes (liberal or conservative) are the main stumbling blocks to achieving an electorate informed enough to make reasoned deciosions.

In a pure democracy, I suspect we'd have the Death Penalty and no National Health schemes.

Not to offend anyone with this, but I thought it was an interesting look at the current state of the U.S. military. I don't know enough to offer detailed comments on its accuracy but I've heard most of it before. Keep reading past the section on neo-Nazis for plenty of other disturbing stuff.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/31/us-army-racism-iraq-afghanistan

Thats deeply disturbing and shocking. Shooting civilians for fun, to keep score? Hearts and minds eh?

Nearly four in 10 U.S. residents blame weather on "end times"
By Mary Wisniewski | Reuters – 3 hrs ago

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Nearly four in 10 U.S. residents say the severity of recent natural disasters such as Superstorm Sandy is evidence the world is coming to an end, as predicted by the Bible, while more than six in 10 blame it on climate change, according to a poll released on Thursday.
The survey by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with the Religion News Service found political and religious disagreement on what is behind severe weather, which this year has included extreme heat and drought.
Most Catholics (60 percent) and white non-evangelical Protestants (65 percent) say they believe disasters like hurricanes and floods are the result of climate change.
But nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of white evangelical Protestants say they think the storms are evidence of the "end times" as predicted by the Bible.
Overall, 36 percent point to end times and 63 percent to climate change.
PRRI research director Daniel Cox said that some respondents - including 75 percent of non-white Protestants - believe extreme weather is both evidence of end times and the result of climate change.
"No one really knows how (end times) would look and how God would bring it about," Cox said.
Politics also color perceptions of the weather, the survey found. More than three-quarters of Democrats and six in 10 independents believe that the weather has become more extreme over the last few years, while less than half of Republicans say they have perceived such a shift.
"Their political leanings are even affecting how they experience weather, which is pretty fascinating," said Cox.
The January-to-November period in the United States this year was the warmest first 11 months of any year on record for the contiguous states. And 2012 will likely surpass 1998 as the warmest year on record for the nation, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
CALL FOR ACTION
Most climate scientists believe that the warming trend for the nation and the world is tied to human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels.
Extreme storms like Sandy, along with more intense droughts, wildfires and floods, are projected by some as the result of climate change, though scientists are reluctant to attribute individual events to global warming.
The PRRI survey found that while there is disagreement about the causes of global warming, there is widespread agreement about the need for action.
Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. government should do more to address climate change - including most of those who believe global warming is due to natural weather patterns, the survey found.
It also found that 15 percent of Americans believe that the end of the world, as predicted by the New Testament's Book of Revelation, will occur in their lifetime. Some 2 percent believe that the end of the world, as predicted by the ancient Mayans, will occur by the end of this year.
Some people who say they believe in end times do not act on that belief in their everyday lives, said Cal Jillson, political science professor at Southern Methodist University.
"I think that's their way of expressing a deep commitment to Biblical literalism," said Jillson. "If you sat down with them and said, 'Do you really think that within the next few years we'll experience the end times?' they probably don't ... . A good number of these people are saving for retirement."
The survey of 1,018 adults was conducted between December 5 and December 9. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
(Reporting By Mary Wisniewski; Editing by Greg McCune and Xavier Briand)

Interesting, but I instantly mistrust the methodology of any survey in which 99% of those surveyed have a coherent opinion.

Overall, 36 percent point to end times and 63 percent to climate change.

Where for the example are the people who said, "I don't have enough information", "I frankly don't give a $%^&", or "Duhhhh, what? "

Vanishingly few people have the intellectual capacity to realize they don't have enough information. Those who don't give a rat's ass probably hung up at the beginning of the interview, and I think the culture is pretty well saturated with climate change so there's good name recognition.

But I also know you understand the importance of evaluating data within the context of methodology, and I think a "survey by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with the Religion News Service" could reasonably be supposed to have a built in bias, don't you think?

The answer here is get everyone who thinks the weather is down to God- seperate them out and leave them to farm their own food using prayer- I give them 2 years before they are sacrificing each other in wicker men for better weather.

The trouble is they'll all want us farmers to continue growing their food for them, so I suppose they'll want us to do the sacrifices too. Do you know how inconvenient that's going to be?

Still its an excuse for a big bonfire and a good old fashioned song and dance (will someone burns).

David wrote:But I also know you understand the importance of evaluating data within the context of methodology, and I think a "survey by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with the Religion News Service" could reasonably be supposed to have a built in bias, don't you think?

Funny, I didn't notice who did the poll. You reckon they took the numbers off their own subscription list?

if a day in which 18 children have been murdered is not the day to talk about gun control, when WILL the day be?

I feel like I'm about to throw up from following this story.

http://live.reuters.com/Event/Newtown_School_Shooting

Too many thoughts and I don't know what to say. Sadness and rage.

But to your question Carly, there's always been plenty of talk. The problem is nobody's DOING anything!

I'd love to see this town, or the state of Connecticut in fact, pass a gun control law and force the NRA to try to prove they don't have a right to protect themselves from this kind of horror.

If one or two states have the courage to put something forward, I'll bet others will follow. Just like with same sex marriage and marijuana.

Its not guns that kill people, its the complete free availablity of them to anybody who wants one.

Madness- and this just keeps happening but no, it cant have anything to do with gun laws- they are obviously working just fine and its an Americans rights blah, blah blah
Absolute tradegy this. Horrible.

I take that "blah blah blah" a little personally Petty, but let's both calm down a bit before we re-open this debate, OK?

Sorry David- didnt mean to offend but I was so disgusted by the whole thing, I just found listening to those arguing the proguns side that it was all just words in the face of what had happened, again.